On Mon, 20 Feb 2006 11:56:07 -0000 (GMT)
"Kaimano" <haydude ezplanet net> wrote:
> I hope not. The point of Linux is freedom and independence, not being just
> "free". On the contrary, personally I spent more with Linux (if I value my
> time) than with any other OS I used.
To be realistic, Linux is still essentially in early public beta mode (at
best) in regard to the desktop. Eventually the churn will slow down, but
not until a fair bit more development is done. Expectations of Linux
desktop users need to be set appropriately. Hand wringing about the
current state of affairs ignores the fact that massive amounts of energy
are being poured into making it better.
> Anyway, I would like to focus more on the way we can improve it, starting
> from taking a step back and looking at the core architecture.
>
> The package inter-dependency at "RELEASE" level is killing it.
There is no evidence that Linux is dying.
> Ideally I would start thinking of a real multi-tiered solution with a
> clear separation of concerns, and the establishment of core APIs which
> first priority should be to maintain the compatibility with previous
> releases.
> Too much is now changed from release to release only because of the lack
> of proper planning and design of the interfaces.
There is no practical way to demand, force, cajole, or beg everyone who
contributes to the evolution of Linux to conform to some grand roadmap or
to always maintain backward compatibility. Even if there were, it would
just create a different set of tradeoffs from the ones we have today.
Linux isn't a panacea, it's just the best choice you have if you value freedom.
For your needs today you might want to consider using long-lived distributions
such as RHEL that guarantee compatability for five or more years so that you
can be sure you don't need to reinstall. But there are other tradeoffs you
must make if you go down that road.
Sean